Comments to last Tuesday’s Curbside Classic pointed out the lasting stylistic influence of the BMW 6 Series on such cars as the Acura Legend coupe. That reminded me of this out-of-focus shot I took of a 1990 Infiniti M30 last winter. I try to stick to cars 25 years and older anyway, but this is a car that has really fallen off the radar, as well as my camera’s auto-focus function. The M30 was a left-steering version of the Nissan Leopard, which in turn shared its platform and basic configuration with the legendary Nissan Skyline R31. Performance was quite another story: the M30 had a 162 hp version of the Nissan 3 liter V6, and came only with an automatic. Given its weight of 3330 lbs, performance was modest. But with the availability and interchangeability of Skyline and Nissan 300Z turbo components, the M30 is the easiest way to end up with that unique JDM-Skyline look on these shores.

41 Comments on “Curbside Classic Outtake: 1990 Infiniti M30...”

I always admired these until I test drove one back in ’94 with the intention of buying it. It was a convertible which I understand (understood?) were rare.

It drove miserably; very poor seating position, rattled incesseantly and performed, as you mentioned, modestly. The upholstery hadn’t held up well either but that may have been from leaving the top down in the sun.

Great looking, but hugely disappointing; I passed on it and never considered another.

A buddy of mine in high school had one with the adaptable sonic suspension with a sensor that would switch between Sport and Comfort depending on the road conditions.

The interior was severely outdated even when it was new in the US, though the Leopard recieved updates later on. I also beleive this is also one of the very few infinitis that didn’t have the analog clock. I wanted one of these a few years back, if only to swap a Skyline engine or a turbo SR20 into.

rpol: The convertibles were built in limited numbers by a 3rd party, I beleive. That would explain only the rattles.

The increase in efficiency in engines just continues to boggle my mind. Less than 20 years ago, and it was a 3l V6 with 160 HP? Now we have 2l 4’s with more than that and the same or better fuel mileage. Part of me wonders what we could get if those efficiency gains had gone entirely to fuel economy, and kept the 4 cyl. HP down around 100…

“Well, the later ones in ‘80-’81 were 267 CI, but the one I actually meant is the earlier 262 CI version of ‘75, which put out 110 hp. Good enough for a tie in my book.”

Paul – You are correct. The 262 and 267 were different engines with different applications. The biggest difference is that the 267, which I believe was made from ’79 to ’82, came with standard features of self destructing crankshafts and camshafts.

The 262 came back, sort of, in 1994-1996 as a “Vortec” design also known as SBII.

I’m getting off-course here but that is a peculiar coincidence as the 1970-1972 Chevrolet 400 cubic inch big-block engines were also 402’s in actuality. In some cases they were referred to as 396’s and in some cases 400 Turbo-Jets but never 402’s.

The Motor’s manual literally doesn’t even list the power for the 1975 Ford 3.3 litre six. I think Ford were too embarrassed to publish it.

For 1976, the 3.3 is listed at 81hp, while the 4.1 is at 87hp.

The AMC 4.2 litre six was 110hp in 1975, for 26hp per litre.

Chrysler didn’t even report power figures on any engines for 1975, as listed in Motor’s. Their 1976 version of the 3.7 litre slant six had 100hp, or 27hp per litre.

The GM 4.1 litre six in 1975 put out only 105hp, which was 25.6hp per litre.

I think the Ford inline sixes from the malaise era “win” the least efficient award for power output. If memory serves, they also didn’t run very well and got pretty miserable fuel economy, as well.

Ford’s 5.0 V8 for 1975 was 122hp, or 24.4hp/litre; their 5.7 V8 was 148hp, or 26hp/litre; and their 6.6 V8 was 144hp 21.8hp/litre. The biggest V8, the 460, was 218hp, I think that’s 28.7hp/litre.

If you are looking for 1980 engines with the same problems, look no further than the totally strangulated International Scout, in which the 5.0 V8 was able to only put out 122.3 hp, and their 5.6 V8 which “belted out” 148hp. Pretty much as bad as the mid-1970’s Fords.

The emission strangled AMC 5.9 V8 used in the mid-1980’s Grand Wagoneer was so gutless, they were too embarrassed to publish horsepower ratings, but rumor had it, that it was in the range of 130hp. If so, that’d be about 22hp per litre.

It should be added that the 4.1 litre / 250 cubic inch Ford six declined in power dramatically from 1969 and 1970 (155hp), to 1971 (145hp), to 1972 (95hp or 98hp depending upon the application), to 1973 (88 or 92hp or 95hp), to 1974 (91hp) to 1975 when it was 70hp (72hp in some cars – whooee, do you think you might feel 2hp difference in a car weighing in at 3000 pounds or more?)

Arguably the Leopard/M30 shared more parts with the Z31 300ZX than the not-so-legendary R31 Skyline (the R32 is the one which earned the model’s latter-day fame).

Nissan did the whole luxury marque thing on the cheap: the G20 was a rebadged Primera, the M30 a rebadged Leopard, and even the Q45 was a short-wheelbase President. Acuras in those days were near-luxury, and even Lexus was literally the LS400 plus an afterthought spiffed-up Camry.

Highway27 wrote above: “Now we have 2l 4’s with more than that and the same or better fuel mileage. Part of me wonders what we could get if those efficiency gains had gone entirely to fuel economy, and kept the 4 cyl. HP down around 100…”

Our 10-year-old Chevy Prizm (1.8-liter Corolla motor, 120 hp, manual shift) has held up well and can still get 40 mpg at high steady speeds, and variable valve timing wasn’t introduced on that motor until the following year. There are cars today with only a little more mass than the Prizm but a lot more room in the back seat, with drivetrains that are both fun and economical – why is it taking them so long to get here from the European market?

Huge horsepower has its charms, but so does lower mass and a lower center of gravity. I say this as a longtime driver of a 1966 Pontiac Bonneville convertible who was finally weaned from the idea of restoring it when a family member gave me a 4-year-old ’83 Civic 1300 (an 1800-pound car with 12-inch wheels).

Well this bored engineer would say it’s due to a massively restrictive intake and exhaust, low compression and tiny valves. Engines are really just air/heat pumps. You gotta get the air into and out of those massive cylinders, or else you get no powah.

But all those engines probably still had lots of low end torque, which is what most American’s want right? After all the modern SUV is really just a 70’s station wagon with better visibility and a better stereo. Handling, braking, fuel economy? All about the same I’d say.

That 400 was weak indeed. Although the 200ish hp 460 was no hot rod, it had the torque to motivate those barges faster than they had any business going. Keep in mind if you slap a set of ported 1970 D0VE heads onto that lazy 460, you’d pick up an easy 100 HP. Big valves and an extra full point of compression works wonders. Really woke up my old Mark V.

The M30 was the first convertible from a Japanese luxury brand, as well as the last for many a year. I don’t think there was another until the SC430, and Infiniti has just now done their second drop top.

” … to 1971 (145hp), to 1972 (95hp or 98hp depending upon the application)”

Part of what happened in 1972 is that most auto makers began quoting SAE Net horse power based on standard J1349, instead of the earlier gross horsepower numbers. The earlier numbers used undefined setup techniques and an engine lacking basic things like an exhaust system, water pump, etc.

Thus, most (if not all) of the drop off from 1971 to 1972 isn’t real, it is simply a matter of moving to a defined test procedure instead of practically making the numbers up. You can find a bit more background here:

http://wikicars.org/en/Horsepower#SAE_gross_horsepower

Because the move was from no-system to a defined test regimen, there is no handy conversion factor available or possible. This historical anomaly causes confusion in the enthusiast community to this day.

I say this as a longtime driver of a 1966 Pontiac Bonneville convertible who was finally weaned from the idea of restoring it when a family member gave me a 4-year-old ‘83 Civic 1300 (an 1800-pound car with 12-inch wheels).…

You are joking, right? I do get the low weight is a plus thing – I drove a 2400 pound K car for a bunch of years and the tossability of such light weight made up for many shortcomings. But really, there is something awesome about 60’s American convertibles…can’t imagine that itch being scratched by a Civic…

OMG….I briefly had a 1980 Impala 2dr with that wonder of a motor, the 267 V8 2bbl. What a waste of iron. Gutless performance and not so good mpg. This same Impala had the dash split on me in two places during the first cold night it sat outside in the driveway.

Ah yes…..and people wonder why GM has not meant “The Mark of Excellence” for so many years only to become Gov’t Motors……